Kickstarter Is Not a Store

Share this post

It's hard to know how many people feel like they're shopping at a store when they're backing projects on Kickstarter, but we want to make sure that it's no one. Today we're introducing a number of changes to reinforce that Kickstarter isn’t a store — it’s a new way for creators and audiences to work together to make things. We’d like to walk you through these changes now.

Creators must talk about “Risks and Challenges”

Today we added a new section to the project page called "Risks and Challenges." All project creators are now required to answer the following question when creating their project:

“What are the risks and challenges this project faces, and what qualifies you to overcome them?”

We added the "Risks and Challenges" section to reinforce that creators' projects are in development. Before backing a project, people can judge both the creator's ability to complete their project as promised and whether they feel the creator is being open and honest about the risks and challenges they face.

The new section will appear below the project description of projects that launch starting today.

New Hardware and Product Design Project Guidelines

The development of new products can be especially complex for creators and seductive to backers. Today we’re adding additional guidelines for Hardware and Product Design projects.

They are:

Product simulations are prohibited. Projects cannot simulate events to demonstrate what a product might do in the future. Products can only be shown performing actions that they’re able to perform in their current state of development.

Product renderings are prohibited. Product images must be photos of the prototype as it currently exists.

Products should be presented as they are. Over-promising leads to higher expectations for backers. The best rule of thumb: under-promise and over-deliver.

We've also added the following guideline for Hardware and Product Design projects:

Offering multiple quantities of a reward is prohibited. Hardware and Product Design projects can only offer rewards in single quantities or a sensible set (some items only make sense as a pair or as a kit of several items, for instance). The development of new products can be especially complex for creators and offering multiple quantities feels premature, and can imply that products are shrink-wrapped and ready to ship.

These guidelines are effective for all Hardware and Product Design projects that launch starting today.

We hope these updates reinforce that Kickstarter isn't a traditional retail experience and underline the uniqueness of Kickstarter. Thanks for reading, and thanks as always for using Kickstarter.

Kickstarter announced that it's prohibiting product renderings in the Hardware and Product Design categories, but "rendering" can mean a lot of things. What does Kickstarter mean?

To clarify, we mean photorealistic renderings of a product concept. Technical drawings, CAD designs, sketches, and other parts of the design process will continue to be allowed. Seeing the guts of the creative process is important. We love that stuff. However renderings that could be mistaken for finished products are prohibited.

Do the new guidelines mean that Kickstarter will only accept Hardware and Product Design projects with finished products?

Not at all. We simply ask creators to share with backers exactly what’s been done so far, show how the product currently works, and explain how it will be completed. In short, we expect creators to show their work. Backers have shown that they're happy to get involved in projects that are in earlier stages when the creator is clear about the remaining work and their ability to complete it.

Do the new guidelines apply beyond Hardware and Product Design projects that are developing new products?

No. The new guidelines only apply to Hardware and Product Design projects that are developing new products. These guidelines do not apply to Design projects like the LowLine and +Pool or Hardware projects like Stompy: The Giant Rideable Walking Robot. Why? They aren’t developing new products that backers are expecting in their mailboxes.

How will Kickstarter know whether something is a simulation or rendering?

We may not know. We do only a quick review to make sure a project meets our guidelines. If an obvious simulation or photorealistic rendering is spotted during that review, that project will not be allowed to launch. If a simulation or photorealistic rendering is discovered after a project launches, that project will be canceled. Everyone should continue to use their best judgment when deciding whether or not to back a project.

Kickstarter announced that Hardware and Product Design rewards could only be offered in single quantities. What if my product works best as a pair or as a set of five?

As we noted in the announcement, sensible sets are fine. If your piece of hardware is best offered as a set of five, that's okay, however you couldn’t also offer it as a single piece. Creators will have to decide what works best for their project.

Final thoughts?

We created Kickstarter so more creative work could exist in the world, and last week's changes are in service of that mission. We're confident that these updates will lead to an even better Kickstarter. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us, and thanks for being a part of it!

+1 on requiring the Risks & Challenges section. Most good projects have been explaining that in their project descriptions anyway.

-1 on disallowing renders, mock-ups and simulations. These are fundamentals in pitching an idea to backers - if you went to a conventional funding meeting without these, you'd be kicked out the door as clearly being woefully unprepared for the task. Slap all the disclaimer and labelling rules on them that you want, but banning them is just wrong. Even require that, if renders or simulations are provided, a photo of a current prototype is also required, so that backers know both where the project is now *and* where the developers would like to take it.

-1 on disallowing multiple orders. Not only is it a matter of meeting minimum production runs (which is important), but there's also a matter of convenience for people ordering multiple copies as a group rather than having to each submit their own order. More useful would be for projects to be required to clearly separate out a "Speculative" category for the items that will only be available if the project is successful.

I welcome these changes and I find some of the attitudes against the new ideas rather odd.

I see arguments about how this is not an angel investment site. I disagree.

Things like losing the ability to do manufacturing reduction runs or no longer having the money to actually turn a vaporware rendering into an actual prototype prior to making a full product seem like a silly counter-argument for these changes.

If you need the capital to make a prototype first, that should be your project's first goal, not the promise of a full product. If you can achieve both, kudos, and even better.

Seems some do not fully understand how difficult the process of product actualization are and skip a few steps in the face of all the glorious piles of money they can get people to give them for shirts and hats.

If you have a valid idea, KS shouldn't be your first nor last stop on the road to obtaining investment in your idea.

Expecting a single point of entry to supply you all the capital to fully back an idea is kind of arrogant and really speaks more to a fundamental lack of business acumen.

If it is fraud that you want to "manage" as opposed to "execution ability", please consider this suggestion:

1. Create a category "Milestones" for each project, as appropriate.
2. Operate the funding out in an escrow-like arrangement.
3. Release funds based on milestones being achieved, with "evidence" uploaded to project page.
4. Creates a more process-driven communication between project creators and backers.
5. Backers, where necessary, can call "halt" to further funds release, if current/due milestones have not been achieved nor communicated satisfactorily.

Kickstarter as a platform would look more responsible. The processes shall ensure the communications are mandated at least at the self-declared milestones. Backers don't feel they are "blackboxed".

This is penalizing the creators when the BACKER's expectations are the issue.
When a POTENTIAL backer clicks on the 'Back This Project' button they should be met with an agreement that explains that they are HELPING a project BECOME reality, not just buying a pre-made product. They must check buttons indicating their level of risk-awareness and ability to absorb the risk.
By restricting renderings you just killed Ikea - who is moving towards all-digitally-created sales material. Oh! Wait! That’s OK, because they are *already in business*. But it’s not OK to help a guy with an idea turn it into reality.
Huh?
Kickstarter is intended to Kick-START projects, not just be a store. The new guidelines make it more of a store, less of a start-up incubator.
Bummer.

Kickstarter - you're ambition to over-protect a small group of naive, whiney backers is destroying a good thing and you're quickly demoralizing the innovative spirit of this website and community. Please understand that Kickstarter is not a game we are playing - you are a commercial foundation for authentic start-up companies that provide real jobs for brave creators and the talented people they provide work for. Your new rules are detrimental to our business and livelihood and you're dumbing down to the lowest common denominator of moronic backers - this utopian approach is absurd at best. If backers do not understand that there is a risk of delayed product then they should not participate.

As a successful project creator, I can tell you and everyone who has cried about the time it takes to deliver a new product, it's one of the hardest. most pressure intensive things I've done in my entire life and career. There's a reason large companies like Logitech take a year to launch a new product - because it's hard! I have invested nearly $4000 in 7 other Kickstarter ventures and I've never whined or complained, because I understand and support the great effort these people go through.

Again, why would you choose to stifle the creators of innovative products like this? Instead, I suggest mass emailing every prescribed backer and provide a clear warning of the risks presented here. It's that simple. This site is clearly intended to provide pre-sales interest and commitments for innovative new products by assisting the creators to bring these products to market. The great reward to backers is first adoption bragging rights, early access to new products and prices well below anticipated retail.

Clearly, the only confusion here is on the part of the backer, not the creators. The backers need you to provide this clarification. Making rules like preventing developers from using 3D visualizations and selling multiples means you are stopping innovation and minimizing our desire to participate - I guarantee that nobody is getting rich on this site and the money raised is spent trying to deliver great product in a hurry.

It's time to wise up and grow up Kickstarter, before you completely run off the people who take great risk and pay your bills.

@Nick Coghlan
Completely agree with his comments. The warning are great, while not allowing renderings or multiple's of the product is a horrible idea.

@Charles Waugh
Again I agree with his comment. Would I have backed the Ouya if it were provided with only a wooden controller and a chip board instead of a rendered mock up of how it will run. No.

The idea of kickstarter is to help people, who may have even a complete product, to get the funding needed to make a production run viable. The reality is that the major hardware and software companies will not come here only those who only think that producing their product will be worth while. While those with great ideas no matter how far along the line of development might find that this is the only place that makes sense to develop something.

For instance look at Obsidian Entertainment. They have developed Fallout New Vegas, a AAA video game. They are developing a new game, Project Eternity. They found that dealing with publishers, giving away the rights to their game, having huge say over how the game develops is something that they can do without. They are using kickstarter to say to the communtiy, "hey this is what we want to make and this is what were willing to give out for it." But under your rules the idea that people would recieve multiple copies of the game is a no no. Why? Those multiple copies brought in more money that other wise would have been lost, which could have meant a failed project.

Please don't put in these rules, except the risks and challenges section which will do little to harm the creators, the community that supports you so much is begging.

Sorry Kickstarter, but your rules about renderings & multiple items are terrible. Why would I ever back a project that is only a mashup of components on some perfboard? Where is the interest in that? Why would I risk ANYTHING without seeing the same vision for the product that the creator sees? This actually works to make Kickstarter more of a store and less of a funding agency. In fact, it's pretty much the exact distinction between store and funding a product idea: in a store, what you see is what you get, funding an idea, you put money towards what you want to come out of it and hope things go ok.

For multiple items, what is wrong with me throwing extra money at and expecting greater reward from a project I think will do great? What if 20 people ordering 2 items means the difference between a mass-produced part being able to be produced vs. not?

The rule about "Risks and Challenges" is a great idea, and a step in the right direction. But one step forward and two steps back doesn't get you at all where you want to be. I have backed 12 projects so far, and so far every single one has been successful or is actively keeping me updated on their progress. I can see that number not growing any larger if these kinds of rules stick around. Please reconsider these rules, for the love of Kickstarter.

I think renderings have their place, maybe alongside a prototype. There are some manufacturing processes that are difficult and expensive to prototype until there is funding in place (e.g. custom extrusions). The result of this rule may be that rather than create renderings, the projects have to 3D print their renderings just to create a "prototype", which seems like an unnecessary step.

As a backer, I would be happy to see "here is the prototype and here's a rendering of what it will look like when manufactured".

• Product renderings show significant progress on potential CAD work leading towards fabrication. The more insight into the project development, the more backers can understand what they are in for. Quite simply, *nothing* that provides details of the team, their product and progress should be prohibited. Requiring prominent disclaimers when these images are used should be enough.

• Forbidding multiple quantities is also a ludicrous prohibition. Many hardware products are offered with associated SDKs, and therefore companies wanting to do testing and development may need multiples for various team members. This has nothing to do with being a store and simply helping a product get the necessary support it needs. Pebble is a great example of this.

As with many of the other commenters, I urge Kickstarter to reconsider.

I think the 'no renders' policy is a little sketchy. I can see why you came up with it, but for a whole class of projects the main reasons there's a kickstarter is that someone can't afford to just go and have their CAD prototyped/CNC'd.

Also forbidding simulations is so bad. Diagrams and renderings are so essential for explaining the product, even when there is a prototype over the table(e.g look at B9Creator project). It seems the puritan vein has come to kickstarter, forbidding everything because it can be used badly, you loose the ability to benefit when it is used the right way.

By "render" do you also mean mock-ups? And if you don't mean mock-ups, wouldn't it be trivially easy to just make one up (especially with a 3d printer)

A lot of people have been finger pointing at the Ouya (since it's cool to hate it and call it a scam), but they did have prototype hardware and the lady from it was playing a game on it in the video (albeit not with the Ouya controller). Did it fit in the mock-up of the case they showed? Apparently not.

Is it allowed to show rendered rewards (not a product)? For example, we have designed logo for T-Shirt and there are services that makes a good image of t-shirt with the logo on it - so we don't have to photo it. But from the other hand, it's a product?

i'm personally working on a fully working prototype anyway, because i think that a project should be proven working at a certain degree.
however one of the key aspect in my case is easy of use and overall appeareance.
Some custom injection molds can cost up to 20'000$,so the current prototype is not as polished, but that's our limit right now and one of the reasons we apply for crowdsourcing.
A lot of machining has been done with some basic CNC machining BUT the final product will benefit from us being able to buy advanced 4/5 axis machines.
I think it's unfair that we should not be able to show what the prototype is about "WHAT".
A prototype is always a physical rendition of an idea, not just a proof of concept.
I'm not even thinking on how i can explain how the machine work without and exploded 3d view animation.
I think a good compromise could be : renders and simulations are allowed for fully working prototypes.
I will have to choose another way of founding my project if i'm forced to show my fully working prototype all "dirty" and "naked" without injection-molding plastic parts on it.
it's like showing a working car metal frame and trying to sell that design...
form and function always goes together.

The title of this post is "Kickstarter Is Not a Store".
Then it goes on to describe two new rules:
1. You can't use product renderings of what Rewards may eventually look like - it must be the Reward's current state.
2. You can't advertise features that you do not already have in your existing product.
Now you're not throwing money at a Creator in order for them to try and make their prototype look the way they want and do the way they want - no, you're throwing money at a Creator to make further copies of what they already have.
Suddenly, it sounds a heck of a lot more like a store.

3. You can't offer multiples of a single Reward.
A store with a "limit 1 per customer" policy. Have you done any research to find out which projects that were successful and delivered would have failed (assuming there wouldn't be a magical influx of many more backers) with this policy already in place?

I always considered KickStarter to not be a store - I even argued this to many friends and acquaintances who then went on to become Backers with that in mind - but your recent Accountability post actually cleared this right up; KickStarter is absolutely a store.

"Before backing a project, people can judge both the creator's ability to complete their project as promised" is all fine and well, but your policy still clearly states that Creators must A. deliver or B. offer refunds. As long as that is there, there's no legal grounds for "Risks and Challenges". Either there are risks and the Creator may not deliver NOR offer a refund, or they must deliver/refund and the only risk is that the Creator ends up going bankrupt.

I can't help but feel that you're falling all over yourselves due to the recent negative attention in the popular press, the growing negative comments from Backers on projects that are way overdue or in a state of failure, and the recent Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing by a Creator which was likely fallout from their KickStarter project gone wrong and getting sued as a result (Hanfree, Seth Quest).
I get that you're trying to protect Creators from themselves, and at least try to make Backers understand that things may not go as planned and maybe get more of them to just shrug off pledged funds rather than demanding refunds. I get that. But I'm not sure the conflicting information and bizarre limitations are the way to do this.

- Product renderings & simulations are part of the development process often. While I agree with "Products should be presented as they are", and simulations need to be clearly marked as so. However, often "RENDERINGS" ARE THE SPEC THAT IS SENT TO MANUFACTURERS like a CAD drawing or web design mockup. It would be foolish not to publish these; "a picture is worth a thousand words"..
Perhaps create a new tab for renderings?

- You should make it easier for people to get multiple rewards, not prevent them. Why don't you want more money? People will just contact the creator on their private website for multiples. Then, you may not receive all the money you could have had, since they'll look for alternate funding for their alternate copies...
Also, who are you to judge if one project makes sense as a "sensible set" or not? What about software licencing for multiple computers &/or users, or something that may be "sensible" in an office, where everyone in the office needs one? Or "sensible" to send as gifts? Or "sensible" that it may be easily destroyed on use so multiples are needed (eg like the Teensy & Galago development boards I've funded; I plan to only use one, but others may need extras if they will make those boards permanent part of their projects)

Keep in mind that MySpace was the internet's darling, until they frustrated users enough to drive them to FaceBook. Money like water flow to the easiest path.

Thank you for the new rules! New "projects" are getting more and more just products, they want to sell.
I mean, e.g. what is this marshmellow-crap? Or this ice-cream "project"?
They're just trying to sell some food!

I like the spirit of this change, if not the actual wording and the final policy. Renders should be clearly and unambiguously labeled as such. This will definitely help to protect folks from vapor, but may cut too deep.

shh: I don't think you understand the costs to mass-produce anything, which includes food products. It is one thing to make "prototypes" in your kitchen, it is another to buy a rent a commercial kitchen, buy high-volume ovens, mixers, supplies, packaging, etc. Thus, these people need a large cash infusion to jump from baking from home to baking for 1000s of people.

Which is why I think allowing multiples of items is important; most things can be used in multiples. Knowing what kind of market you have is very important in starting out when switching from prototypes &/or low-volume to high-volume.

Superbacker

Renderings are a necessary part of the manufacturing process, and should definitely be allowed. I have funded numerous projects that I thought were worthwhile on the basis of descriptions and renderings, at the same time realizing that they might never be completed. Also, many of these items I could never buy, but I thought they were worth funding anyway. My reward is funding something cool and/or innovative, plus a small token (like a patch or shirt - so I disagree with the person who said to ban those).

Multiples of items should also be allowed. If you're risking money to back something, why shouldn't you get rewarded the way you want? Like someone said, maybe something can be worn out and I want a replacement, or maybe I want to give some to others. And as a backer, that's part of my reward - being able to get the item cheaper, or sooner, or with neat extras - and getting further copies from a store wouldn't give me that.

The warning is good, but the other changes are really contrary to the spirit and functioning of Kickstarter, and will drive away both producers and backers.

Talking about risks & challenges are good. But backers deserve to know the intended design vision of a product. I see two problems: 1. Creators might not get funded since they cannot communicate their design vision. 2. Backers might fund promising products with false impression of what the final design/brand is.

I think that the limits on renderings is a GOOD IDEA. A very good one. As of right, I stopped even looking at hardware and design projects because so many have failed to deliver. Some commenters have insulted backers for having the nerve to expect that projects actually deliver.

I am however worried about the multiples. I agree about multiples for hardware and design but does this affect say getting to decks of artistic playing cards like the Tacoma project?

The risks and challenges thing is fine, but the other changes are overboard, imho. Like others have said, it would be far better to simply require renderings and demos to be labeled as such, rather than prohibited entirely. Otherwise, you are tying the hands of the people trying to get their project off the ground, to get people motivated and whip up interest. And how does it help anyone to restrict multiple item reward tiers? Again, as others have said, quantity can be very important to making it economical to produce hardware. Why make it harder to get to that threshold?

This list of changes makes it seem like you are more worried about your notion of how you want Kickstarter to be perceived than you are about what the creators and backers actually want and need.

Agreed with the above that product renders should be labeled as such (usually obvious, but may not always be so).

Just to add to the 'multiples' problem:
What is to stop a Creator from adding 'pledge multiples of this amount if you want multiple of this reward' to the description?
Or, as we have seen with the Digispark project, set up a separate 'order processing' page (off-KickStarter) and ask users to increase their pledge amount as appropriate for the number of items they have selected on that page?
As neat as the latter is (even with the hiccup), it does make the entire pledge vs reward process less transparent.
I wish attention would have gone to more important (to Creators/Backers) things - like how S&H costs are handled. Almost every big project still has to deal with Backers saying they forgot to add S&H costs - this despite it being technologically simple to prevent from happening.

I wonder what the real reason behind these changes are... must have been some intense risk assessment or something major behind the scenes. If these were in place before Kickstarter would be down about 1.5 million themselves from projects that relied on multiple copies and rendered components like the TikTok and Ouya.

Still see no reason to limit the number of copies of a product being given out -- it seems like they want to remove any possibility for products that aren't 1 household per unit designs. I'm all for the disclaimers and explaining the risks, challenges, and how they will overcome them. But limiting what type and how they present their idea is juts going to stifle creativity.

Why was this change decided? What are we missing? What is the thing behind the scenes that we aren't being told?

I think the thing that people are missing is that Kickstarter is likely doing this for legal reasons, not because they think it makes the process better. As more and more people list future hardware products, with 3D renderings, ability to order more than one, etc, Kickstarter begins to look more and more like a store and less like what it is.

If Kickstarter looks like a store and quacks like a store, then they open themselves up to possible lawsuits should someone look to defraud their "customers" (or even if someone honestly just doesn't live up to what was expected).

This is a disaster for Kickstarter. I don't have any real issues with the disclaimer, but removing renders for hardware is a terrible. Plenty of projects use renders to the benefit of projects and backers. As long as everyone knows its a render, or if renders are shown along with the prototype, why would you ban renders outright?

The multiple rewards is going to prevent many projects from reaching their goals. There is no inherent risk from allowing multiple rewards to a single backer over several backers getting one reward each.

I just wanted to log my objection as a backer of 25 projects against the restriction on renderings. renderings are part of the fabrication and creation process and they are valid production steps. Restricting their use is not a solution to the kickstarter perceived problem. However the ban would hinder project creators of all sorts whether they have a physical prototype or not. I hope that this comment is received and weighed. Thanks for everything.

I'm one of the "Consumers" trying to be protected by this move and I disagree with the "No Prototypes / No Multiple Item Rewards".

How about this for ANY project? When a backer selects a monetary level, pop-up the "Risk and Challenges" section that the project owner had to fill out and ask "Are you comfortable with these Risks and Challenges for this Kickstarter project?"

I think that and a disclaimer on renderings and simulations should be sufficient. Don't penalize the designer.

Maybe I'm the minority but I know these projects I back may not come to fruition every after it's fully funded. Would I be disappointed? Sure, who wouldn't. There are those projects that I would back at a higher level because of the multiple rewards AND they're specifically Product Design projects.

Wow ...So with these new rules in place does that mean the 0ne dollar that I gave to just back a project might be the last of the 31 projects that Ive so far backed ?
Have I recieved all by backed rewards ? No
Am I upset that some are behind schedule ? No
Have I placed mutiple orders ? Yes
Would being able to back only one item make me more likely back a Product ? No
Of the backed products Ive recieved all have been outstanding items .
Limiting what a project can show me in a design is a bad idea , Yes show what your design is right now but also show
what the final vision is .

Superbacker

i Don't like the Multiple item rule at all. the Rendering one is a good one i want to still see rendering's as a consept of the design for the product as the prototype is not normaly a good looking product.

I really don't get why a backer can't purchase multiple quantities for Hardware and Product Design projects.
Many of these projects will have a limited run and the backers may not be able to purchase another after the kickstarter project finish.
This would surely limit successful projects in the Hardware or Product Design category.